Appendix I: Method Most of the reported data were gathered during six weekends spent as guests of the Big Mountain community, between January 18 and March 15, 1981. Some interviews and observations taken by Wood and Vannette (1979) in December 1978 and January 1979 are used as supplements. On January 17, 1981, we explained our purpose and plan in a Community meeting. The following weekends were spent interviewing in homes, at sacred places, and in the community hogan. Our involvement in the community was fairly high. Our base of operations was the Big Mountain community hogan. We shared many of our meals with residents, visited socially, and J. Wood participated in a meeting of the Native American Church. Because of the nature of the subject we were researching and because of time constraints, we chose to proceed with a minimum of structure. A list of questions was prepared as an interview guide (Appendix II). Interviews were taken mostly in Navajo, with the help of interpreters from the community (Annie L. Homes, Joann Roan, and Sally Tsosie), and taped. We attempted to talk to as many different knowledgeable persons from as many different families as we could. In all, twenty five persons were interviewed or contributed information (Appendix III), and everyone was cooperative and helpful. We believe that the data represent the thoughts, knowledge, and feelings of the community. Wood, Stemmler, and Wood donated their time and expenses to the project, except for transportation, which was provided by the Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University. 3:9 Mountain Project Initial questions John J. Wood 23/81 Appendix II: Interview guide How does a boy or girl learn his or her feeling about the land? 3. Teach me about this land and what it means to you like you teach your children or grandchildren. C. Teach me the meaning of sacred places or shrines. there? What are their names? D. Questions about specific shrines: 1. What is place called? Are their other names? 2. How did it get its name(s)? 3. What do people do there? What kinds are 4. Are there stories about this place? Do you know them, and would you tell them to me? 5. Are prayers or offerings made there? Do you know them, and would you tell them to me? Who makes offerings and prayers there, and for what purposes? 6. Is this place the place of any holy people? If so which ones? 7. Have you or has anyone you know had a ceremony over you there? If so, when and what one? 8. Are plants, herbs, minerals, waters or other things collected there? 9. When is the place used? Who uses it? Is this person a singer, hand 10. When was this place last used, and who used it? 11. Do people who use this place also use other places for the same purposes outside of this area? 12. Does everyone, young and old, respect this place? 13. Are there others who have knowledge of this place? What are their names? Appendix III: Persons from whom information was received Daniel Ashiiké Violet Ashiiké Larry Beck Victor Beck Asdzaa Yazhí Bedoni Chísí Nez Begay Jane Biakeddy Joann Roan Katherine Smith Sally Tsosie Lydia Watchman Dine Yázhí Louise Begay Yázhí Tsosie Horseherder Yázhí Jimmy Zea Rebecca Zée I am writing on behalf of the Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Association (RMOGA) in opposition to S. 2250, the Indian Religious Claims bill introduced by Senator Alan Cranston. RMOGA is a trade association which represents hundreds of members who account for more than 90% of the oil and gas exploration, production and transportation activity in the Rocky Mountain West. manner This legislation, designed "to ensure that Federal lands are managed in a that does not impair the exercise of traditional American Indian religion", could have a deleterious effect on multiple use management of the nation's public lands. While we are certainly not opposed to the exercise of religious freedom in any way, we are concerned with the potential far-reaching, open-ended ramifications of this bill. We are concerned that, from an oil and gas standpoint, S. 2250 could jeopardize access for exploration and production activities on a sizeable percentage of lands in the Rocky Mountain region. By prohibiting any activities which would interfere with traditional Indian religious practices, the bill provides Indians with a veto over any activities which could be interpreted as interference. Virtually all public land was Indian land at one time, and because these religions are based on land and nature, and involve countless sacred sites, mostly unidentified and unknown to the public, the impact of this measure could be substantial. There is already ample provision for the consideration of Indian religious rights and needs through the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1979. Indians, like all members of the public, also share an opportunity to comment on and influence land management decisions through formal and informal planning processes utilized by surface management agencies. This legislation would grant to American Indians exclusive rights of the use of certain public lands, making the religious use of federal lands the primary use of those lands, and subjugating other multiple uses, to the extent they do not interfere with religious use. June 16, 1988 The Honorable Daniel J. Evans page two We are extremely concerned about the potential impact S. 2250 would have on the nation's public lands in general, and on multiple use management of those lands in particular. We request your consideration of these views and strongly urge the Committee not to advance this bill without further hearings in the field. The witness list at the hearing on May 18th was strictly limited, and there are many representative viewpoints that the Committee did not have the benefit of hearing. In addition, we strongly urge the Committee to investigate and inventory the location and number of Indian religious sites throughout the West to ascertain the nature and extent of the lands involved. Thank you for your consideration of our views. made part of the hearing record on S. 2250. We ask that this letter be AFB: CW Sincerely, Jess Compen SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY Office of Government Relations Foresight Science & Technology, Inc., 2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 305, Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 833-2322 June 9, 1988 The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye Chairman Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs Dear Senator Inouye: The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) appreciates the opportunity to offer comments on S. 2250, to amend the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. Please include these comments in the hearing record on the legislation. The Society is an international scholarly and professional association comprised of both professional and avocational archaeologists concerned about the discovery, interpretation and protection of the archaeological heritage of America. As such the SAA has had a long relationship with the Department of the Interior and other federal land managing agencies to help preserve and promote the nation's cultural and natural resources. Much of this cultural heritage is directly related to Native Americans. The SAA applauds the intent of the legislation. We support the conservation of cultural resources. But we have many concerns with the language in the amendment. We feel that the language is too vague and would be difficult to implement. It poses conflicts between intent of the bill and the reality of managing archaeological and other resources. Members of the Society have worked with Native Americans over many years on various subjects. Archaeologists are all anthropologists. As anthropologists we recognize the need for cultural sensitivity to different approaches to life and beliefs. These different belief systems make each group unique. |